martinessa

200,000 Years of Satire

2010-08-24T14:38:00.005-05:00

I picked up this article while on vacation a few days ago and found it amusing. Until I realized they were serious.

How to Find Love in a World of Hookups
GLAMOUR (June 2010)
"It's taken womankind 200,000 years to finally be able to have no-strings, no-guilt sex. But what happens when you start wanting more? We've cracked the code to figure out how you can have your fun — and your happy ending, too."

Allow me a few questions for the author and believers of such an article:

Do you think, perchance, that the previous 200,000 of with-strings with-guilt premarital sex might have held, I don't know, maybe one or two clues as to why it's so difficult to have your cake (hooking up) and eat it too (monogamous lifelong marriage)?

Are we admitting that young women, ahem, actually might want more than perpetually hooking up? How does that fit with the oh-so-empowered I-don't-need-men-but-I'm-going-to-act-just-like-them superwomen of the late 20th century?

Does this article match anyone's real life experience? Granted, the author quotes real life 20-somethings (most of whom seem kinda confused) but she also helpfully showcases Samantha Jones as an example of relational clarity. Not sure what to do with that.

Thoughts?

The Pill Turns 50

2010-05-09T15:35:00.003-05:00

The Washington Post has an article today celebrating the 50th anniversary of the advent of the most famous form of birth control: The Pill. The conclusion of the article got my attention:

"But there is a bitter irony in the fact that the same pill that gave mothers the ability to combine childbearing and a career by controlling fertility has also led many women to delay childbearing so long that they jeopardize that fertility. Contraception makes it possible to postpone motherhood, but it doesn't solve the problem of how to combine caring for children with going to work. As a result, many women wait to have a child until they are financially secure enough to afford child care.

In some sense, the pill let employers and the government off the hook by giving women the means to juggle jobs and families. Sanger and Katharine McCormick hoped that the pill would allow women to control their lives, but they did not count on women being stuck with such hard choices. For while mothers' lives have changed over the past 50 years, the work world has lagged behind: Most jobs are still 9 to 5 -- or longer -- leaving little time to care for children. The cost of child care is, for many women, ruinously high. Paid parental leave is still too rare, and where it exists, usually too brief. For the most part, it is women who, aided by the pill, have adjusted to the demands of the workforce, rather than the other way around.

The pill may have been a gift to mothers. But 50 years on, it could use some new accessories. This Mother's Day, instead of jewelry, candy or flowers, how about some more novel presents: lengthy paid parental leaves, government-supported child care and flex-time."

Question: how are parental leave changes, subsidized child care or flex time going to fix the problem described?

Answer: they aren't. Such changes to benefits are only addressing the symptoms of the problem. These benefits are exactly the same as The Pill in the one sense she delineated earlier: they "let employers and the government off the hook by giving women the means to juggle jobs and families."

Which leads me to the second question: what is the real root issue here? (I have my hunches, but I'd love to know what you think!)

Bloggable bits

2010-04-27T07:42:00.004-05:00

I've been accumulating a list of things about which to blog. In the interest of time, here's a simple list:

HBR: Am I micromanaging my work? Sadly, the answer for me is usually yes. Regardless it is an interesting thing to examine in light of the fact that most people are concerned with how micromanage-y their manager is.

Gallup: Democratic Party image drops to a record low. Now if only the Tea Party would drop off the face of the earth, conservatives could perhaps win back some political mind share.

Pew Research: In related news, no one likes Congress either. The support for smaller government has risen 5 percentage points over the past four years, and now outpaces the support for larger government by 10 percentage points. Again, conservatives seem to have made some inroads; offering some concrete solutions is the logical next step.

LOLFed. Is utterly ridiculous but makes me laugh about financial news. I feel like that is an impressive feat. Even if I still don't fully understand what a CDO is.

Gen Y and Abortion

2010-03-12T17:21:00.003-05:00

From Gallup today:

Those aged 18-29 feel differently about abortion than their parents and, to a lesser degree, their grandparents. Oddly, they are more conservative. Of all age groups, those under 30 have the highest percentage (23%) of those who believe abortion should be illegal in all cases. Ages 30-65 have a 17% share believing that abortion should always be prohibited, and for those older than sixty-five, the percentage is 21%.

It will be interesting to see how those ideological differences play out politically and socially in the coming decades.

Defining Moment, Enter Stage Right

2010-03-10T20:16:00.002-05:00

From today's Washington Post editorial page, Michael Gerson writes:

"Whatever the legislative fate of health reform -- now in the hands of a few besieged House Democrats -- the reformers have failed in their argument. Their proposal has divided Democrats while uniting Republicans, returned American politics to well-worn ideological ruts, employed legislative tactics that smack of corruption, squandered the president's public standing, lowered public regard for Congress to French revolutionary levels, sucked the oxygen from other agenda items, reengaged the abortion battle, produced freaks and prodigies of nature such as a Republican senator from Massachusetts, raised questions about the continued governability of America and caused the White House chief of staff to distance himself from the president's ambitions. It is quite an accomplishment. For the president, it must also be quite a shock, because he thought he was taking a reasonable, middle path on health reform."

ZING!

(Read the whole article here, and let me know if you agree with him!)

And now for something completely unrelated.

2010-02-23T09:56:00.004-05:00

Three very unrelated but all interesting items:

Unselfishness makes business partnerships work. Actually, it makes a lot of partnerships work. And unselfish people usually don't happen by accident.

Rarely do we see the gap between reality and PhotoShop, but this article has a few brilliantly raw examples of the chasm. It makes me angry that an entire industry lives and breathes on our desire to look like that, when that doesn't actually exist. And it would be one thing if it only targeted adults, but it doesn't. The impact can be lifelong and devastating, especially for young women. And I'm not ok with that. Just saying.

I have always sort of admired, in a weird way, the crass swashbuckling White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, and his brazen-yet-pragmatic political methods. Looks like Obama should probably start listening to him a bit more.

And there is Tuesday's news & tidbits roundup by Amy...enjoy!

Too Much Greece is Bad For Your Fiscal Health

2010-02-22T10:14:00.002-05:00

The unfolding drama of the possibility that Greece will default on its debt is a harrowing and messy one. Which made me all the more appreciative that Robert J. Samuelson wrote this beautifully concise piece in today's Washington Post, on both the reasons for and meaning of the Greek fiscal tragedy.

"Almost every advanced country -- the United States, Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Japan, Belgium and others -- faces some combination of huge budget deficits, high debts, aging populations and political paralysis. It's an unstable mix. Present deficits may aid economic recovery, but the persistence of those deficits threatens long-term prosperity. The same unpleasant choices confronting Greece await most wealthy nations, even if they pretend otherwise. "

Dear Boomers, I love you. Also I hate you.

2010-02-17T20:01:00.005-05:00

The contract that binds generations together for the purpose of caring for one another in vulnerable stages of life has persisted in formal and informal means since, roughly, the beginning of time. The assumption that parents will take care of children, who will grow up and take care of parents, keeps society from fraying at the edges in a variety of ways.

A new provocative book, however, argues that the Baby Boomer generation (those born between 1945 and 1960) might put a unbearable strain on that human contract. Entitled The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took their Children’s Future—and Why They Should Give it Back, it looks like quite the read. (For starters, check out The Economist's review.)

Not only did the Boomers transform (for better or worse) everything they touched, they also lived and worked and put their kids through college and bought house(s) and cars and generally poured productivity and dollars into the American economy since the late 1960s. And now the darlings want to retire, en masse, and although they've got some savings - it's certainly not enough to last as long as they will likely live, nor at the scale most envision as "active retirement."

All of which will make for quite an interesting working life for my age cohort. I doubt that I can count on any Social Security for myself, but I might spend my working years paying for the broken wealth transfer system to Boomers. And we thought the 1960s were turbulent...

Well, that pretty much sums it up

2010-02-02T11:23:00.002-05:00

I would write about the Tim Tebow commercial, or the firestorm surrounding it, but I'm pretty sure the Washington Post's Sally Jenkins hit this one out of the park. (Sorry had to use at least one sports metaphor, Sally.)

Tebow's Super Bowl Ad Isn't Intolerant; Its Critics Are

I think this is my favorite line: If the pro-choice stance is so precarious that a story about someone who chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term undermines it, then CBS is not the problem.

Exactly. The NARAL/NOW crowd's hold on American mindshare is actually that precarious. And that's kind of amazing.

A recent post I wrote for The Father Factor blog...

2010-01-26T10:22:00.000-05:00

So Men Health's recently published a list of what they consider the top ten worst fathers. The line of reasoning was, "Well, even if you aren't perfect - at least you aren't this bad." The list includes everyone from Michael Lohan to David Hasselhoff to Eliot Spitzer to Woody Allen. It also includes some less well-known folks who beat up their kids' Little League coaches or produce 78 kids (to date).

This is interesting on multiple levels. First, it's good to know there is still some sort of standard for what it means to be a good father. Granted, after this list, the bar isn't too high but if you did the opposite of everything on this list (ie: care about your kids more than yourself and don't physically or emotionally harm them), you're headed in the right direction.

Secondly, I think Men's Health might have forgotten another entry on the list: the intentionally absent father. Obviously there are situations where a father cannot, for various reasons, play an active role in his children's lives. But in the majority of cases, as difficult as the father's presence might be, a father's absence certainly doesn't make for a painless childhood either. It's simply a different category of pain.

Perhaps we and Men's Health can agree on one point - fathers do need encouragement. Not perhaps from the legacy of outrageously ridiculously bad fathers, but from working on their fathering skills and knowing that their presence is an irreplaceable wonderful benefit to their children!

O Shame, Where Art Thou?

2009-12-06T15:40:00.003-05:00

In the midst of all the exceedingly sad Tiger Woods + Elin Nordegren + undetermined number of women of ill repute DRAMA, I have come to some questions I can't answer:

Were we always so culturally interested in affairs, marriage implosions and the lurid details of everyone's indiscretions? I actually think it has become somewhat boring - the weirdo car crash, in this case, did help the sensational factor but the storyline is tiresomely depressingly old.

What do women say to other women about these sorts of situations? Do we blame Elin? Blame Tiger? Blame the "other" women? All parties are painting themselves as victims, but somehow that can't be true for everyone.

In terms of my gut reaction

Women - The fact that the transition from cocktail waitress to millionaire is contingent only upon hunting down the requisite prey and a bit of extortion is, in my opinion, equally sad and disgusting.
Men - you've seen this storyline play out so many times. And yet each of you, with enough power and money, believe that you are exempt from the consequences of such decisions. Apparently this is not a new situation as King Lemuel's mom told him (in Proverbs 31), "Do not give your strength to women, your ways to those who destroy kings."
Parents: raise your sons and daughters to know how to relate to the opposite gender, understand that marriage is hard-but-worthwhile work, and that sexual conquests are not proof of personal worth, manhood or womanhood, as apparently some in this situation were wont to believe. First, of course, you have to believe those things too.

So there's my two cents...thoughts?

Lies / Choices / Marriage

2009-11-12T16:54:00.003-05:00

Instead of viewing marriage as the most stable, most effective structure for raising children, it is now simply one choice on a menu of family structure options. If that fact had no ill consequences for the children or adults involved, it would be easy to gloss over it. But it does have consequences. And very often they aren't pretty.

That's why this article from a retired judge caught my attention. I especially appreciated this segment:

"Before I retired from the bench a few months ago, it was my job as a judge to sort through all the issues rising, in part, from the growing lack of reverence many Americans have for marriage. In court, I often saw humanity's worst behavior. I also dealt with teenage mothers, absentee fathers and parents who have never been married, often by choice.

I saw parents who didn't seem able or willing to connect their children's problems with their own failure to provide their children with the necessary road map to self-sufficiency and productivity. And these families didn't just show up in my courtroom. They exist everywhere."

As broken, fallen humans we all fall for this same line: that our choices are only our choices, that we can evade or manage the consequences, and that our choices don't really affect other people that much. The reality is much harsher.

Me & the New York Times Make Amends

2009-10-29T15:09:00.003-05:00

Although I am not a NYT fan by nature, two articles in today's edition might have caused me to rethink said dislike.

Thing 1: A Drop in the Wrong Bucket

Someone needs to say this. A 5.8% cost of living adjustment for those over 60? In a recession? When you are about to raise my taxes to pay for the masses of Boomers about to enter these programs? I know they vote, but really? Also I like the article because it references the lovely Belle Sawhill of Brookings. Maybe we don't see eye to eye on policy, but I like her. She's feisty. Anywho, main quote:

With oil prices plunging and other prices falling, last year’s high inflation (which led to the 5.8 percent increase in Social Security payments) has turned into deflation. Overall prices have dropped 2.1 percent in the last year, according to the relevant price index. Social Security payments, however, will remain as they were, which means that recipients are already set to receive an effective raise, even without Mr. Obama’s $250 checks. No matter what happens with that proposal, 2010 will be the first year since at least the Nixon era that the buying power of an individual worker’s Social Security goes up.

Thank you, NYT, for saying this. It's also what the main conclusion of the Brookings event I attended on Tuesday came to. If we want to help folks get out of poverty, we're going to have to put our money where our mouth is in terms of helping young people do the three key things that get and keep people out of poverty:

Finish education.
Work full time.
Get married before having kids.

But as long as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security eat up the federal budget, I think priorities involving non-voting, not-yet-wealthy young people are not going to be on the radar screen. I don't solely blame this current edition of Congress - it's been an ongoing problem that no Congress has wanted to touch. Regardless, it shows an amazing lack of spine over generations of legislators.

Thing 2: What the Last Meal Taught Him.

Two of my favorite things - good food and a good fatherhood saga - wrapped into one article. See my blog post over at TheFatherFactor for extended commentary.

Not news, just painful.

2009-10-02T10:42:00.002-05:00

That the top 10% of American taxpayers pay 71% of the nation's tax burden isn't really news. But I think it deserves to be repeated. When we're talking about raising taxes (for any situation), perhaps it should be noted that a rather small portion of American earners will feel the impact of that decision even if a large majority of constituents favor said decision. I know tax policy isn't glamorous, especially in an age of recession-frenzy, but it is a codified set of incentives and it is in everyone's best interest to have those incentives pointing in the direction of growth and job creation.

Unions: to whence, and for whom?

2009-09-08T14:38:00.003-05:00

Gallup notes that for the first time since it started polling Americans on their approval or disapproval of labor unions, the approval rating dipped below 50%. Only 48% of Americans now say they approve of labor unions.

Hopefully this sort of data bodes ill for the Employee Free Choice Act and its related wranglings on the Hill. In any case, I find it unfortunate that unions have so effectively turned what was once the ultimate act of employee solidarity into a synonym for expensive, self-centered, self-destructive protectionism.

This Just In. Not really.

2009-09-02T12:34:00.005-05:00

So with all the 2008 election hoopla about "change" and "hope" and "happy" and "sunshine" and "butterflies" and "kittens"...and "no more lobbyists influencing the government." Frankly, the kittens had a better chance of making real change in DC than any restrictions on lobbyists. As the Washington Post reported on Monday,

"President Obama ordered federal officials to disclose their contacts with lobbyists trying to influence how the government doles out money to jump-start the economy. Yet few such communications have been reported even though lobbyists say they are busier than ever with the multibillion-dollar stimulus.

Since the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February, federal agencies have reported 197 contacts with lobbyists about stimulus grants. In August, the entire government reported only eight such lobbying contacts. The Pentagon, which controls about $7.4 billion in stimulus spending, reported just one lobbying contact so far this year. The Homeland Security Department, with at least $3 billion to spend, reported none."

Are there really many historical examples of political structures being run apart from money, relationships, and influence? I would argue non, simply because typically the end game of politics is power - the power to set priorities, the power to appoint people, the power to distribute resources. And power is going to attract those who stand to win or lose by the decisions made. So I'm not sure how 2008 voters, much less anyone who has worked in government, could envision a political discourse, in which, magically, everyone would stop caring about their interests and let "the government" proceed without "outside influence"? Thoughts?

No thanks, Josh Harris.

2009-08-07T10:19:00.002-05:00

Christianity Today's recent article, The Case for Early Marriage, is a provocative and frank assessment of marriage, young people and the church.

Of note,

The Gender Imbalance in the Church - if church leaders are not concerned about this shift now, they will be in a few years. I don't understand why church leaders are oblivious to (or ignoring?) the staggering problem the church will have if none of its young people stick around to marry one another and are trained to take leadership positions in the church. The Boomer generation has been in leadership for so long that it may seem, to some, unnecessary to seek out and mentor the current young leadership waiting in the wings. But if leaders delay any longer, there won't be many young people left who want to be mentored, much less leadership caliber men who are anxious to step in to the Boomer's legacy of successes and problems.

The Idiocy of Josh Harris-ism - by overfocusing on the pre-marriage portion of the equation, we have created an awkward and not-easily-navigable transition between "you must ask my dad to court me" and "financially independent, well-educated, husband and wife." The legacy of "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" mentality has tainted the entire Christian dating/marriage/family structure. And it has raised expectations without providing guidance or training on how men or women are to meet one another's and their parents' expectations.

Food for thought...and another lesson in ideas have consequences. And not always the consequences anyone expects.

In Which Men are Oddly Necessary and Still at Fault

2009-07-30T13:39:00.003-05:00

I am still trying to process this article: My First Abortion Party.

Of course, it is designed to be slightly provocative but I think there is major unresolved tension in the execution (no pun intended) of an ironically practical idea.

"Abortion is, after all, a very tricky topic -- a minefield of opinions where the slightest misstep can elicit unexpected reactions from friends, family, co-workers and strangers. Though I would classify myself an ardent pro-choicer, I also recognize that I am a man, and therefore somewhat of a problematic player in the debate. It’s never been made clear to me what sort of involvement I’m entitled to on the issue, and I don’t feel particularly confident making judgment calls about women -- whatever their political leanings.

I did, however, think the extent to which Maggie’s friends were eager to vilify her partner was peculiar. These were liberal people, after all -- people whose views on sex were worlds away from anything someone might consider "modest." I couldn’t help but notice how aggressive and, for lack of a better term, ‘male’ their attitudes became when confronted with the issue of a woman’s right to choose. It was almost as if, in the process of upholding an ideal of openness and acceptance, they had fallen victim to the same forces they were trying to critique."

Like I said, I'm still processing. Also read a fascinating reaction piece here. Thoughts?

Brain Candy

2009-07-21T14:21:00.003-05:00

Thing 1: David Brooks / Liberal Suicide March / New York Times
The definition of 'overreach' is about to be accompanied with a photo of Nancy Pelosi.

Thing 2: Hanna Rosin / American Murder Mystery / The Atlantic Monthly
The scary convergence of crime, midsize American cities, and the end of housing projects.

Ka-ching.

2009-07-07T09:15:00.002-05:00

TIME magazine's cover story: Why Marriage Matters.

Caitlin Flanagan has a thoughtful, if not overly profound, article on the nature of American attitudes to marriage. Some money quotes:

"The poor and middle class are very different in the ways they have forsaken marriage. The poor are doing it by uncoupling parenthood from marriage, and the financially secure are doing it by blasting apart their unions if the principals aren't having fun anymore."

"Few things hamper a child as much as not having a father at home. 'As a feminist, I didn't want to believe it,' says Maria Kefalas, a sociologist who studies marriage and family issues..."

Fatherhood Buzzzzz

2009-06-27T14:48:00.002-05:00

So every year the National Fatherhood Initiative honors some special dads at its annual gala. This year the event centered on Chief Quartermaster John Lehnen for his outstanding work as a military dad. The evening was a beautiful tribute to him and his family, as they continue to manage the balancing act of "military" with "family." The lovely four Lehnen kids (a set of triplets in there!) and wife Jennifer were also on hand.

And a few days after all of that, the Lehnens got an even bigger honor as the President invited them to the White House for a series of events on fatherhood. There is a short but incredible video of Chief Lehnen's reponses to that day on the White House blog. Check it out...good stuff!

I've been doing this...anyway...

2009-06-22T19:50:00.002-05:00

So I realized that I've been blogging...just not publicly. As part of my job, I have the fabulous responsibility of reading the Washington Post and USA Today every day. I know, I can hardly believe that someone pays me to do that either. But I love it, so no complaints! In any case, there is always something interesting going on and I'm always emailing articles to friends and family. But now it's going to be back here. Stat.

That being said, some things never change. Like how much I love LOLFed, Cakewrecks, or the Pregnant Pause.

legit, yo.

2009-06-17T08:43:00.002-05:00

am now blogging for work here on the father factor blog...

[i get paid for this? someone pinch me!]

Subprime Families?

2009-04-06T08:23:00.001-05:00

As not every mortgage is made equal, perhaps neither is every family structure made equal?

Drama Drama Drama

2009-03-25T09:53:00.003-05:00

Thing 1: Credit Crisis Visualized is entertaining, though somewhat depressing. Props to designer Jonathan Jarvis for the subprime family visualization.

Thing 2: Dear AIG, I Quit. is sad but true. The geniuses (ie: Reps/Sens) who are calling for these people's heads ought to be sent to the chopping block instead. Perhaps Congress hopes that, by deflecting blame and responsibility for this mess, they will somehow emerge unscathed in their fortified city of Self-Righteous Indignation on Moral High Ground Hill?

Barack & Sarah

2009-02-02T20:59:00.002-05:00

Jan 31 facebook status: Amy dislikes Sarah Palin and Barack Obama for the same reason: they both represent philosophies of government that have been tried and found wanting.

Explain.

Obviously Gov. Palin and President Obama have conflicting policy positions on almost every major issue of import. And I am, honestly, more at odds with Obama's stances than Palin's. That being said, both of them leave a bad taste in my mouth. I chalk that up to one thing they do share: recycling ideas that haven't worked.

Obama likes to make favorable comparisons with himself and FDR or JFK. Granted, there are some similarities but I think he's more similar to a Lyndon Johnson. They both favored conceptions of government that were politically expedient and were generally rather confident of government's abilities.
Palin is sticking to what has been the conservative mantra for the last 20+ years: pro life/tax cuts/defense. Since that time, the Cold War has ended and the Republican upstarts became the entrenched interest in DC. The pro-life movement has not repositioned its messaging to shine a spotlight on the most pressing points of its convictions.

Both democratic populist opportunism and republican "let's just undo it"-ism are equally dangerous and neither has a particularly beautiful track record (Great Society failures (there are many), no major movements on abortion (judicially), lack of federal budget discipline (on defense spending and social policy spending; earmarks)).

For me, both Obama and Palin are representative of old guards, neither of whose ideas have guided American politics in a innovative directions. Alternatively, their equal and opposite pulls (and terms in office) have prevented the other pole from achieving too many permanently effective policy changes.

Though Obama's mantra is "Change" - he is less different than many of his party who have run on the national ticket in the past 50 years. And though Palin aims to be the fresh new face of the GOP, she is cut from the same anti-intellectual-ish easily-stereotyped solutions-from-a-box Republican cloth that her partymates have been since the end of the Cold War.

Thoughts?

Sleeping at the wheel, are you?

2009-01-25T17:05:00.004-05:00

This article in Politico suggests so, among other things. I tend to agree. For a quick recap, here are the author's seven reasons for healthy skepticism in the newly minted Age O'Bama:

The Genius Fallacy
The Herd Instinct
We Are Broke.
Words, words, words.
[Obama] rarely challenges the home team.
Everyone is winging it.
The watchdogs are dozing.

Agree?

Miscellany...

2008-12-11T17:34:00.004-05:00

1. My point, exactly. When both the far right and the far left are antsy, it means good things for the prospect of centrist governing.

2. The new Metro homepage is beautiful.

3. Much has been said recently about Illinois governor Rod I'm-Bad-at-Being-Corrupt Blagojevich. However, I think many people have skipped over the real story here: his resemblance to Janet Reno.

Not so dumb after all

2008-12-05T23:23:00.003-05:00

Michael Gerson had an excellent op-ed in Thursday's Washington Post on the necessity of governing from the center:

"The candidate of "change" is discovering what many presidents before him have found: On numerous issues, the range of responsible policy options is narrow. And the closer you come to the Oval Office, the wiser your predecessors appear."

Hmmmm. To all those who are petrified of Obama in the White House, Gerson has some excellent points. Of course, there will be policy decisions that those on the righter-than-you-and-those-other-not-right-enough-people fringe will not accept. C'est la vie. The point is that the crazies on the left aren't exactly impressed with Obama, considering his Cabinet picks. I think that's a good sign of balance.

And now for something completely different: LOLFeds. Take one of my most favorite things (lolcats) and combine them with a credit crunch disaster, and I CAN HAZ LAFFS. That simple, folks, that simple.

Now that you bring it up...

2008-11-19T09:35:00.002-05:00

Marilyn Elias has an article in today's USA Today highlighting the results of a study about life expectations of Gen Y/Millenials vs Boomers.

The results are interesting - GenY/Millenials (compromising 18-30 year olds) except to be great at marriage, work, and school at a rate much higher than their parents. Of course, the article is full of the usual blather about the spoiled obnoxious generation "these days." I'd like to take a moment and remind folks that the Gen Y / Millenials have Boomers for parents. So don't act like "these kids" just fell out of the sky.

Beyond that, the conditions for a senior graduating from high school in 1975 are radically different from someone graduating in 2009. Ok, so they both lived through the disgrace of a sitting president. And although there were difficult economic conditions in both eras, I think for kids whose growing up years were the peaceful prosperous 90s, the current world situation is a anomaly. Perhaps for those graduating in 1975, the bad conditions were the latest in a long series of difficult post-WWII-Cold War-Vietnam-energy crisis-did-I-mention-the-Cold-War bad events.

Does the high school graduate's template for viewing the world have more to do with upbringing (ie: worldview from parents) or with world circumstances?

Well, he's terribly annoying...

2008-11-12T18:47:00.003-05:00

After the state of Nebraska passed a safe-haven law for the purpose of protecting mothers who wished to anonymously leave their infants at hospitals, people were surprised to see this result.

Three quick things...

A of all) What lawyer forgot to put an age limit on this thing?

B of all) Ok, I can't really blame him/her for that...who'd think someone would equate leaving an 18-minute old and an 18-year old on the hospital's front door?

C of all) Is this the natural progression of a culture that views children, not as individual lives to be protected, nurtured, and guided, but as inconvenient and (when possible) disposable things?

Always a choice?

2008-11-10T09:28:00.004-05:00

Sharon Jayson of USA Today has an interesting piece analyzing the pros and cons of earlier vs later marriage. Median age for first marriage is almost at 26 for women, and almost 28 for men. This represents an almost 5 year gain (for both genders) in that median since the early 1960s. Jayson points to the desire for personal development, economic stability /career advancement as reasons for the shift.

I have no issues with the statistics; I have a bit of an issue with the tone. The article seems to indicate that people are consciously choosing to get married at a later age. What if that is not the case, and people are either unable, unwilling, or unprepared to put themselves in places of meeting the marriagable sort? What if the equation is backwards...it's not that people are waiting, it's that no one is sure where or how to find the sort of people they want to marry?

Perhaps the 20-somethings of the Odyssey generation cohort are adept at finding hookup "partners" but not so skilled at finding life partners?

Thanks, but no thanks.

2008-11-08T10:01:00.005-05:00

The single-motherhood-by-choice thing is an increasingly popular route for many women. As much as I would like to sympathize with women who desire to be moms, it gets a bit difficult with provocation such as this:
Regardless of Ms. Sloan's personal journey, the entire concept seems, to me, to be lacking some key elements, such as the je-ne-sais-quoi of an involved, committed and responsible father, perhaps?

Check out Ms. Sloan's take on the whole father thin g in the section under "What About Dads?" There is a sort of underlying hypocrisy in this concept. It seems to say: "I (selfishly) want a child so that I can love them (unselfishly)." In a sense, I think it is a reflection of our humanness to desire something greater and longer-lasting (ie: the legacy of children) than seek our own happiness.

Yet children cannot and will not be that Greater Longer Lasting Thing.

A la Dickens

2008-11-06T10:20:00.004-05:00

Great piece on NPR this morning about the expectations folks have for the newly-minted President-elect. I think there are 3 likely paths for this:

People forget their expectations and are happy with his performance.
The press tells people that their expectations are actually in line with what Obama does, and people are happy.
People remember their expectations, and hold him accountable for not meeting them, and are unhappy with his performance.

At this point, I think any one of those options is equally viable.

So who's counting?

2008-10-20T11:33:00.000-05:00

Yes, it's been over a year. Quit yer crying.